In the 1895 U.S. Supreme Court case, McKee v. Lamon, the court ruled on a dispute involving mining rights in Deadwood, South Dakota. The plaintiff, McKee, claimed that he had been unlawfully dispossessed of his mining claim by the defendant, Lamon. However, it was found that at the time when McKee alleged to have made his discovery and location of mineral land under federal law (the Mining Act), he did not comply with state laws regarding such claims which required him to perform $100 worth of labor or improvements within ten days after posting notice of intention to hold possession. The Supreme Court held that compliance with both federal and local laws is necessary for a valid claim on public mineral lands; therefore since McKee failed to meet these requirements set forth by South Dakota's state law within an appropriate timeframe before being ousted by Lamon who subsequently complied with all legal obligations related to claiming this property - including performing requisite work/improvements - ownership rightfully belonged to Lamon. This decision reinforced principles around dual sovereignty where both national and state regulations apply concurrently in certain matters like natural resource extraction from public lands.

In the dissenting opinion for McKee v. Lamon, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying McKee's claim to land in Yosemite Valley was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that McKee had been granted rights to the land by an 1864 act of Congress which gave California control over Yosemite Valley and Mariposa Big Tree Grove, with instructions to preserve them for public use. They contended that this law did not prevent private individuals from acquiring property within these areas through preemption laws (laws allowing settlers on public lands to purchase them). Therefore, they felt that when McKee settled on and improved a piece of land in Yosemite Valley before any state legislation prohibited such actions, he gained legitimate ownership of it under federal preemption laws. This interpretation contrasted with the majority view which held that California’s acceptance of congressional conditions meant no private claims could be made within those designated parklands.